"A.Brinkmann" <arb### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>
> I think, with such a low count you won't get any kind of reliable results,
> the number of samples is just too low. And I do think (without being an
> expert on that matter) that changing the location of your camera (and even
> the image resolution, as you described) will lead to a different set of
> samples, and possibly a different result. You could try increasing the number
> of pretrace passes, maybe that will help a bit.

I have in fact suspected that when I go to higher counts (200+) the lighting
gets more stable.  It's just that I haven't rendered very many images above
count 80, simply because it is so slow and I'm still in the process of
constantly adding or changing something.  Reading your post, I'm suddenly
convinced that this is where my problem lies. I'll do some tests and follow
up on them.

My pretraces are 0.2 -> 0.01 or 0.005.  I don't use load_file, it always
gets me some artefacts (i use pretraces 1 and always_sample off when
loading) and besides I'm constantly updating the scene contents so it
wouldn't work anyways.

> Are you just using radiosity to brighten up the room?

Yes.

> For that, some well placed low intensity shadowless light sources would
> probably do the job better and a lot faster.

I've thought about this, but as I'm modelling a real-world room I want to
try to have it working with the same lighting that is available in reality.
 And I do have the sun light_source (damn, I even have a brightening around
sun in the sky sphere.  it's probably doing nothing, lighting-wise, but it
looks nice whenever I happen to render a scene that has the sun
visible...).  Overall I'm very happy with the current results -- and I
haven't even tried HDRI yet!

> it's starting to look good and fairly realistic, it usually becomes so slow> that I
lose interest ;)

I hear you ;-)

--
jussi.kantola

Post a reply to this message